Re Aug. 7 column: “Right wing-nuts are all about fear-mongering”: Thank you for running Ellen Goodman’s recent column on “fear-mongering,” regarding the proposed health care reform. After labeling as wing-nuts anyone who believes the Democratic Party plan might lead to a push for euthanasia, she launches into an eight-paragraph endorsement of palliative care, which in many cases would be passive euthanasia. Tell me again: Who’s crazy, Ellen?
Carl Strock gets regularly lambasted for his strong opinions. I, for one, want to compliment him for his Aug. 11 column on health care. I have been providing medical care for over 40 years, and the present system is a disgrace to our country: Too much money, too many hands into the pot, too many selfish interests, too little compassion. Our system has replaced the military industrial complex of President Eisenhower’s days. I would label it the medical industrial complex, and it is destroying the country. I wish Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and company would cease their selfish political posturing and try contributing to the welfare of a country they profess to love. We don’t have Americans anymore. We have Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, etc. They are at the throat of each other, and our country is the loser. What amazes me is hearing those conservative voices telling Americans not to let big government get between them and the doctors of their choice. What hypocrisy! Were have they been lately? Only politicians and rich people have doctors of their choice. Where are they when HMOs and various for-profit payers are maximizing pocket money by refusing to pay for needed care, refusing to pay for extra days in the hospital (even when ordered by a treating physician), refusing to cover consultations at an outside institution more familiar to a particular illness? Where were they when I used to spend hours begging an HMO’s bean counter to reconsider a denial to a medical treatment he did not even comprehend — only to face an irrevocable no? I have had people lose their houses, their savings, even their lives because of the inability to shoulder the crushing burden of medical expenses. Fifty millions Americans without medical coverage. Just think about this horrible figure. Most of those conservatives railing and fuming about changes in the medical care system are, of course, well covered themselves. They are rich folks, professional politicians, people represented by powerful unions, state and federal employees, etc. Why should they worry about their fellow citizens out in the cold? The answer should be good old human empathy, but there is also a touch of warning. Things change in life, and many of the medically insured of today may well be wearing uninsured shoes tomorrow.
I see Carl Strock is out muddying the waters with his smatterings of truth, and painting all conservatives with the same broad brush. His Aug. 11 rant over the “angry ones” is a typical example. Conservatives are not against big government. We are for “limited” government. We like big government to defend our borders, to attack our enemies that have attacked us, to care for the elderly that can not do for themselves. I could go on, but I think you see my point. And, yes, we have the right to pick and choose what our government can and cannot do. Because we believe in government does not mean we allow it to run any and all aspects of our life at its own whim. As for the “angry ones,” I fear that Mr. Strock is not the student of history that he proudly proclaims. In fact, I would give him an “F” for American political history. The Founders’ meetings creating this great nation, Constitution, etc. were rife with loud voices, yelling and angry attitudes. This continued into the halls of Congress for decades, where once, in discussing the Civil War, one congressman was so upset that he “conked” his adversary with his cane, rendering him unconscious; poor fellow never did fully recover. I’m not condoning physical violence, yet people getting passionate over what they deem to be injustices is not an unhealthy thing. Mr. Obama claims no one will be forced to give up their present health insurance policy. Correct, as far as it goes; however, it does not go far enough. The bill clearly states that one may keep their insurance. However, if they change jobs, they are not allowed to go under the plan of their new employer and must now accept only the government’s coverage. This is typical of the doublespeak by Mr. Obama that induces an angry response. This bill is too long and consequently many of our lawmakers are shunning their sworn oath and duty by not reading it all. I feel Mr. Obama knew this, and counted on it. The “angry ones” are those who have actually read most, if not all, of the bill and don’t like what they see.
Philip Morris CEO of Proctors, Schenectady About Proctors
Maybe, Just Maybe… August 13, 2009 at 11:55 pm by Philip Morris
You have read, as have I, of all the town hall meetings disrupted by folks opposed not only to the proposed health care reforms but also opposed to public civility. It reminds me when I was a kid and was playing chess with a good friend. Twice we got to the place where he knew he had no chance. Both times he just swiped the board knocking off all the pieces.
In desperation, people opposed to anything and everything their team did not invent are trying to just swipe the board by knocking out debate, supportive voices or any other rational conversation.
With my friend, it was easy. I didn’t bother playing him a third time.
Maybe, just maybe, Congress will return in the fall with the same sensibility.
Mr Morris, have you viewed any of the left wing war protester videos that show the protesters breaking windows, tipping over large flower containers, destroying cars, and throwing cans, bottles and rocks at police. The people on the left just don't like it when their own tactics are used against a cause that they believe in.
.White House appears ready to drop 'public option' WASHINGTON – Bowing to Republican pressure and an uneasy public, President Barack Obama's administration signaled Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new health care system.
Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run plan. Such a concession probably would enrage Obama's liberal supporters but could deliver a much-needed victory on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers.
Officials from both political parties reached across the aisle in an effort to find compromises on proposals they left behind when they returned to their districts for an August recess. Obama had wanted the government to run a health insurance organization to help cover the nation's almost 50 million uninsured, but didn't include it as one of his core principles of reform.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory.
Under a proposal by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., consumer-owned nonprofit cooperatives would sell insurance in competition with private industry, not unlike the way electric and agriculture co-ops operate, especially in rural states such as his own.
With $3 billion to $4 billion in initial support from the government, the co-ops would operate under a national structure with state affiliates, but independent of the government. They would be required to maintain the type of financial reserves that private companies are required to keep in case of unexpectedly high claims.
"I think there will be a competitor to private insurers," Sebelius said. "That's really the essential part, is you don't turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing."
Obama's spokesman refused to say a public option was a make-or-break choice.
"What I am saying is the bottom line for this for the president is, what we have to have is choice and competition in the insurance market," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Sunday.
A day before, Obama appeared to hedge his bets.
"All I'm saying is, though, that the public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform," Obama said at a town hall meeting in Grand Junction, Colo. "This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it."
It's hardly the same rhetoric Obama employed during a constant, personal campaign for legislation.
"I am pleased by the progress we're making on health care reform and still believe, as I've said before, that one of the best ways to bring down costs, provide more choices and assure quality is a public option that will force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest," Obama said in July.
Lawmakers have discussed the co-op model for months although the Democratic leadership and the White House have said they prefer a government-run option.
Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, called the argument for a government-run public plan little more than a "wasted effort." He added there are enough votes in the Senate for a cooperative plan.
"It's not government-run and government-controlled," he said. "It's membership-run and membership-controlled. But it does provide a nonprofit competitor for the for-profit insurance companies, and that's why it has appeal on both sides."
Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said Obama's team is making a political calculation and embracing the co-op alternative as "a step away from the government takeover of the health care system" that the GOP has pummeled.
"I don't know if it will do everything people want, but we ought to look at it. I think it's a far cry from the original proposals," he said.
Republicans say a public option would have unfair advantages that would drive private insurers out of business. Critics say co-ops would not be genuine public options for health insurance.
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, said it would be difficult to pass any legislation through the Democratic-controlled Congress without the promised public plan.
"We'll have the same number of people uninsured," she said. "If the insurance companies wanted to insure these people now, they'd be insured."
Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., said the Democrats' option would force individuals from their private plans to a government-run plan as some employers may choose not to provide health insurance.
"Tens of millions of individuals would be moved from their personal, private insurance to the government-run program. We simply don't think that's acceptable," he said.
A shift to a cooperative plan would certainly give some cover to fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats who are hardly cheering for the government-run plan.
"The reality is that it takes 60 percent to get this done in the Senate. It's probably going to have to be bipartisan in the Senate, which I think it should be," said Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., who added that the proposals still need changes before he can support them.
Obama, writing in Sunday's New York Times, said political maneuvers should be excluded from the debate.
"In the coming weeks, the cynics and the naysayers will continue to exploit fear and concerns for political gain," he wrote. "But for all the scare tactics out there, what's truly scary — truly risky — is the prospect of doing nothing."
Congress' proposals, however, seemed likely to strike end-of-life counseling sessions. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has called the session "death panels," a label that has drawn rebuke from her fellow Republicans as well as Democrats.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, declined to criticize Palin's comments and said Obama wants to create a government-run panel to advise what types of care would be available to citizens.
"In all honesty, I don't want a bunch of nameless, faceless bureaucrats setting health care for my aged citizens in Utah," Hatch said.
Sebelius said the end-of-life proposal was likely to be dropped from the final bill.
"We wanted to make sure doctors were reimbursed for that very important consultation if family members chose to make it, and instead it's been turned into this scare tactic and probably will be off the table," she said.
Sebelius spoke on CNN's "State of the Union" and ABC's "This Week." Gibbs appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation." Conrad and Shelby appeared on "Fox News Sunday." Johnson, Price and Ross spoke with "State of the Union." Hatch was interviewed on "This Week."
Town Halls Having an Impact? White House Bends on Health Care Provision in Face of Discontent Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says the so-called public option -- a government-run health care plan that would be just one component of a broader health care overhaul -- is "not the essential element."
FOXNews.com Sunday, August 16, 2009
Even as Democrats claim the outrage seen at town hall meetings across the country does not reflect public opinion on health care reform, the Obama administration is changing tactics and signaling that it's ready to compromise on a key element of its reform push.
The shift suggest that critics of Democrats' health care reform plans are having an impact, and could change the course of debate in Washington once Congress returns from recess.
On Sunday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the so-called public option -- a government-run health care plan that would be just one component of a broader health care overhaul -- is "not the essential element."
She suggested the White House could settle for a system of insurance cooperatives instead, something the Senate Finance Committee is considering.
"I think there will be a competitor to private insurers," Sebelius said on CNN's "State of the Union." "That's really the essential part, is you don't turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing. We need some choices, we need some competition." ...........>>>>..............>>>>..............http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....care-provision-face/
"One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. . . . Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it." - Ronald Reagan
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Good reason to be angry about gov’t health-care plan
Re Aug. 11 column, “Yet another danger: health care”: I read with great interest Carl Strock’s latest rant against the right. Strock’s dismissive tone regarding those who are actively expressing their dissent regarding the Obama health care bill currently proposed in the House (HR 3200) is rather typical of the reaction of many in the press. If you listen to most of the news outlets, those who express their displeasure are nothing more than angry right-wing zealots who are (at least) to be ignored or (at worst) considered dangerous. In fact, it is this very dismissive reaction that adds to the powerful response from those who express dissent. How long does the average American have to put up with being ignored or abused by those sent to Washington to represent him? And when that citizen reacts with angry words, is he really to be chastised by the likes of Mr. Strock for feeling having strong convictions? With regard to the health care bill, Strock says that the government is “contemplating getting involved with trying to keep people healthy.” Sounds innocent enough when put that way. But my fi rst reaction to that is, “Isn’t my responsibility to look after my health and to make sure I’m insured?” I’ll bet that most of the “Angry Ones” (Strock’s words) would echo that sentiment. And though Mr. Strock seems comfortable with the notion of the government looking after his health, I wonder if he is aware of what is contained in HR 3200. Some of the more troubling provisions include provision of health insurance benefits to illegal aliens, mandating federal government access to private individual’s bank accounts, and taxpayer subsidy of union retiree and community organizer health plans. And that’s just the beginning of the objectionable items to be found in this foul piece of legislation. But what is perhaps the most insulting assertion in Strock’s column is that conservatives disdain compassion for other people. When it comes to personal charitable giving, conservatives are the more generous than their liberal counterparts. While the left loves to express their “compassion” through the redistribution of the wealth of other people, it’s the conservatives who give more of their own wealth to charities of their choice. And that’s what this whole thing comes down to, the individual American’s ability to make his or her own choices about health care without the interference of government. The assertion that conservatives are angry because they hate compassion is simply idiotic. It is estimated that 85 percent of the American public has adequate health insurance. While we all would love to see the additional 15 percent fi nd coverage (because we are compassionate people) those of us in the 85 percent wonder why we have to be forced either to cover the other 15 percent out of our pocket (via a government plan) or forced into a plan that we don’t want that would cover everyone and leave no one out. And lest you fall for the ruse that the plan won’t increase the deficit, please tell me, Mr. Strock, what government program has ever stayed within a budget or delivered its services efficiently (Social Security? The Postal Service? Medicaid?) I am not a Republican or Democrat. I am a conservative who considers himself an American first and foremost. I am angry, but my anger doesn’t define me, Mr. Strock. I will make my voice heard, and if I have to shout to do it, then so be it.
It was 11 years ago this month that my parents died within six days of each other. My father’s health had been rapidly deteriorating since June. As August approached, he told my brother he wanted to die. I clearly remember standing outside his hospital room and asking his physician what could be done about my father’s condition. He would not face me directly when he said, “We’re trying different medications.” Mercifully, my father soon died. My mother died before my eyes six days later. She had battled ovarian cancer and her heart gave out from an infection from the stent through which she received her chemo. As she lay in her hospital bed, my brother and I were asked if we would uphold the DNR [donot-resuscitate] tag on her file, a piece of information we had no knowledge of. When we were able to contact one of her cancer doctors and inform him of our mother’s condition, we were told that her cancer was “quite extensive,” something that wasn’t mentioned when she took her chemo treatment the week before. Based on these and other experiences, I support legislation that would provide my family and me with “end-of-life” counseling. If my parents, my brother and I had the opportunity to know about and at least consider options, it would have lessened our emotional distress. Death is inevitable and I want as much control over my own as circumstances allow, and I do not want my family to blindly deal with end-of-life issues.
When the government decides to pass a law which will effect 1/6 of our economy they should be forced to put a referendum on the ballot in November and let we the people decide on whether or not we want the government to take over our health-care. Every legislature who votes in favor of this bill in it's present form should be voted out of office ASAP.
Kermit we all have end of life options right now with our doctors. I certainly don't want some government bureaucrat advising me on how to treat me or a loved one on the final days of my life. If you really read the health-care bill it will fund abortions with taxpayer funds as well as provide health-care for illegal immigrants and people who have the money but opt to spend it on other pleasures.
Thousands of surgeries may be cut in Metro Vancouver, leaked paper reveals By Darah Hansen, Vancouver SunAugust 10, 2009 Vancouver patients needing neurosurgery, treatment for vascular diseases and other medically necessary procedures can expect to wait longer for care, NDP health critic Adrian Dix said Monday.
Dix said a Vancouver Coastal Health Authority document shows it is considering chopping more than 6,000 surgeries in an effort to make up for a dramatic budgetary shortfall that could reach $200 million.
“This hasn’t been announced by the health authority … but these cuts are coming,” Dix said, citing figures gleaned from a leaked executive summary of “proposed VCH surgical reductions.”
The health authority confirmed the document is genuine, but said it represents ideas only.
“It is a planning document. It has not been approved or implemented,” said spokeswoman Anna Marie D’Angelo.
Dr. Brian Brodie, president of the BC Medical Association, called the proposed surgical cuts “a nightmare.”
“Why would you begin your cost-cutting measures on medically necessary surgery? I just can’t think of a worse place,” Brodie said.
According to the leaked document, Vancouver Coastal — which oversees the budget for Vancouver General and St. Paul’s hospitals, among other health-care facilities — is looking to close nearly a quarter of its operating rooms starting in September and to cut 6,250 surgeries, including 24 per cent of cases scheduled from September to March and 10 per cent of all medically necessary elective procedures this fiscal year.
The plan proposes cutbacks to neurosurgery, ophthalmology, vascular surgery, and 11 other specialized areas.
As many of 112 full-time jobs — including 13 anesthesiologist positions — would be affected by the reductions, the document says.
“Clearly this will impact the capacity of the health-care system to provide care, not just now but in the future,” Dix said.
Further reductions in surgeries are scheduled during the Olympics, when the health authority plans to close approximately a third of its operating rooms.
Two weeks ago, Dix released a Fraser Health Authority draft communications plan listing proposed clinical care cuts, including a 10-per-cent cut in elective surgeries and longer waits for MRI scans.
The move comes after the province acknowledged all health authorities together will be forced to cut staff, limit some services and increase fees to find $360 million in savings during the current fiscal year.
In all, Fraser Health is looking at a $160-million funding shortfall.
D’Angelo said Vancouver Coastal’s deficit is closer to $90 million — almost a third of which ($23 million) has already been absorbed through reductions in non-clinical administration efficiencies.
Vancouver Coastal performed 67,000 surgeries last year, an increase of 6,500 surgeries over 2007.
“What has now happened is that now our wait times are about 25 per cent lower than the provincial average,” D’Angelo said. “We have put a dent in that wait list.”
Brodie acknowledged surgical waiting times have dropped significantly in recent years, particularly for patients needing hip and joint replacements.
He said the proposed cuts threaten those advancements.
“It sounds like we are going backwards here,” he said.
Total health spending in British Columbia was $15.7 billion this year, up about four per cent over last year’s total of 15.1 billion, according to figures provided by the ministry of health.
Health Minister Kevin Falcon was unavailable for comment Monday on the proposed health-care cuts. A ministry spokesman said Falcon is away on his honeymoon until the end of August.
Elsewhere in British Columbia, the province will look to replace the head of the Interior Health Authority, Murray Ramsden, after he announced he will step down at the end of the year.
Ramsden has said his decision to retire is not related to financial problems faced by the authority.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Logged
